Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results

Vint Cerf vint at
Wed Dec 9 12:06:20 CET 2009

Mati is correct; the UTC recommendation urges a transition plan to go  
along with making Sharp-S and Final Sigma PVALID.


On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:07 AM, Matitiahu Allouche wrote:

>    Heelo, Vint!
> In your PDF file, the UTC is listed in the column approving both  
> Sharp S and Sigma as PValid.  I have not kept Lisa Moore's original  
> message on behalf of the UTC, but I seem to remember that their  
> approval of the 2 characters was not unconditional, but depending on  
> finding some way to deal with the transition.
> I think that this would at least justify adding a note as you did  
> for Andrew Sullivan.
> And it is specially important to correctly qualify UTC's vote, since  
> it represents a body of many persons, with significant technical  
> knowledge and vested interest.
> Shalom (Regards),  Mati
>           Bidi Architect
>           Globalization Center Of Competency - Bidirectional Scripts
>           IBM Israel
>           Phone: +972 2 5888802    Fax: +972 2 5870333    Mobile:  
> +972 52 2554160
> From:	Vint Cerf <vint at>
> To:	idna-update at
> Date:	09/12/2009 11:08
> Subject:	Sharp-S and Final Sigma Consensus Call Results
> Sent by:	idna-update-bounces at
> Attached is a PDF of the spreadsheet I maintained during the past
> week's discussions. If you detect errors or omissions, kindly advise.
> It is also important to note that the Unicode Technical Committee
> responded to a formal request for their opinion that Sharp-S and Final
> Sigma should be PVALID
> On the basis of this information, I think we have rough consensus in
> the IDNABIS Working Group that Sharp-S and Final Sigma should be made
> The consensus call did not refer to the joiner/non-joiners and I
> continue to believe that the WG has long since concluded these should
> stay in CONTEXTJ
> With regard to transition, there is considerable diversity among the
> WG as to preferences. In an absolute sense, the specification of a
> protocol (the set of proposed RFCs developed during IDNABIS WG effort)
> is independent of its introduction, so it might be argued that the WG
> does not need to specify an adoption or transition plan. As a
> practical matter, of course, something has to happen for the results
> to get into use.
> Perhaps a small step forward would be for the editor of Rationale to
> make reference to the need for operators (I use this term in its most
> general sense to include registries, registrars, makers of software
> that rely on the DNS, etc) to assess their adoption plans in the
> context of an environment that includes a mix of IDNA2003 and IDNA2008
> "speakers" for a period of time likely to be measurable in years.
> I will try to produce a possible transition synthesis drawn from
> various suggestions in the WG discussion on transition - however, that
> will take another couple of days as I am tied up with all-day meetings
> today and tomorrow.
> This message, however, is intended to convey to the WG and the AD that
> the chair believes we have rough consensus on making Sharp-S and Final
> Sigma PVALID in IDNA2008.
> Vint Cerf
> [attachment "consensus call sharp S final sigma.pdf" deleted by  
> Matitiahu Allouche/Israel/IBM]
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list